Small RAM Size -- OC?

[hat]

I'm thinking of possibly switching to an AMD system, with an Athlon II x4 630. Problem is, I only have 2GB DDR3. If I run into trouble with a small amount of RAM like this, would it be theoretically possible to, for example, overclock from 1066 or 1333 or whatever it is to 1600 or higher and experience better performance? Basically making up for lack of capacity with increased speed?

 

[Sinzia]

To use a car phrase, "There's no replacement for displacement." (in reference to engine size)

It will help, but its not going to be any kind of miracle for speed, it seems most things now love sheer size and not always speed of the ram.

 

[Toothless]

Memory speeds don't really show big improvements. You don't really see a difference between 1333 and 1600. 1333 to 1866 is a bit of a difference but again, not much. You're better off getting a 2x2 kit for 4GB total. I used to own that CPU cept' it was the 620 version. (Only difference is 200mhz in clockspeeds) While it'll run basic tasks and some games, don't expect it to do miracles with OC'd memory. Bumping the memory amount will do the most difference in just about everything.

Do mind that you'll need to reinstall the OS if you decide to go for 4GB or higher as you'll be in the 64-bit range.

Now if you want your memory to go places OC'd. APUs loooovveee fast ram, but to each their own.

 

[eidairaman1]

depends on how loose timings and how high voltage has to be.

I have 16gb 2133 Kit cas 9 for my fx8350

 

[ThE_MaD_ShOt]

Hat, what mobo are you going to use? And what are the specs on the memory?

 

[hat]

Well, it seems I have an i5 2400 and an MSI H67A-G43 B3 motherboard on the way, so the AMD parts I was considering are completely blown out of the water.

I understand that 2GB RAM is more or less just not enough in today's world, especially for gaming. I know I will need to upgrade to at least 4GB, or preferably 8GB when I am able. I was just wondering if overclocking the memory would yield visible results considering I would have such a small amount, kind of like trying to transfer the data faster because there is not as much room for the data to go... like a one lane road with an 80MPH speed limit compared to a two lane road @ 60MPH.

The memory in question is a 2x1GB set of DDR3 1333 CL9. It's a part pulled from an HP desktop, part number 497156-D01.

Now my other questions are: The i5-2400 has a max turbo frequency of 3.4GHz. I have Sandy Bridge models, non-k parts are upwards unlocked +4 bins. Does this mean I can achieve 3.8GHz, across all 4 cores, with this chip? Can I realize this with the motherboard I will be using? If so, I may try doing some additional overclocking with the BCLK. I understand it doesn't yield much, or not at all in some cases, but if I can reach 105 BCLK, I could be just 10MHz shy of 4GHz @ 105x38.

I understand you needed P67 or Z68 for SB parts to realize overclocking, but I also understand some H series boards were exploited to allow it. MSI's page for the board seems to declare overclocking capability: OC Genie II: Auto OC to boost performance in 1 sec.

 

[AsRock]

More speed is not going solve a lack of ram.

Whats the system for ?. I find my systems running about 1.5GB idle before starting any apps so it will all so depend on that too.

 

[cheesy999]

I understand that 2GB RAM is more or less just not enough in today's world, especially for gaming. I know I will need to upgrade to at least 4GB, or preferably 8GB when I am able. I was just wondering if overclocking the memory would yield visible results considering I would have such a small amount, kind of like trying to transfer the data faster because there is not as much room for the data to go... like a one lane road with an 80MPH speed limit compared to a two lane road @ 60MPH.

It won't make that much difference unfortunately when you run out of ram it will store things on the hard drive instead, and it doesn't matter if you overclock your ram so it can deal with 10gb/s instead of 8gb/s when you're moving it between the ram and a hard drive at 100mb/s (figures are purely fictional but are the correct order of magnitude)

Still you'll be able to play older games and things like dota perfectly fine on 2gb, so not all is lost

 

[hat]

More speed is not going solve a lack of ram.

Whats the system for ?. I find my systems running about 1.5GB idle before starting any apps so it will all so depend on that too.

WCG, Video Conversion, and gaming are the main activities I do on my PC. I may be able to do each of these separately, but not all at once like I can now (well, I don't convert and game, but I'll crunch and game or crunch and convert at once).

 

[digibucc]

what kind of hdd? ssd? ssd and flash memory can supplement ram. it's no substitute but it can help...

 

[hat]

OS drive is a Plextor M5S.

Will I be able to use UEFI with this system? Do I need a UEFI BIOS for my graphics card? If so, when do I install the UEFI BIOS? Do I need a UEFI BIOS for the motherboard?

 

[eidairaman1]

Most boards as of 2012 have uefi. The gpu dont need uefi

 

[hat]

I read something about the GPU needing a UEFI BIOS installed in order to use UEFI mode. What happens if I install Windows using UEFI mode and keep the old BIOS system on the video card? Conversely, what if I update the GPU to UEFI mode and run Windows in the old BIOS mode?

 

[eidairaman1]

If u use secure boot uefi is needed. If you dont. uefi is not needed

 

[Nordic]

I wouldn't recommend bclk overclocking with sandy bridge. I did it for awhile with my intel g1620 celeron for a bit more crunching performance, but it just wasn't worth it. The biggest annoyance is it messes with windows clock. Time is tied to bclk. So after awhile my time would be about an hour off, and stuff like boinc or antivirus would throw a fit. I had a bclk overclock of 105, and it ran for the longest time without errors. Eventually it started getting errors and I had to run at 103. Then I just got annoyed with the hole thing and decided the 135mhz was not a big enough performance increase.

 

[hat]

If u use secure boot uefi is needed. If you dont. uefi is not needed

I am interested in that feature (well, fastboot). I just want to use all the optimizations available.

I wouldn't recommend bclk overclocking with sandy bridge. I did it for awhile with my intel g1620 celeron for a bit more crunching performance, but it just wasn't worth it. The biggest annoyance is it messes with windows clock. Time is tied to bclk. So after awhile my time would be about an hour off, and stuff like boinc or antivirus would throw a fit. I had a bclk overclock of 105, and it ran for the longest time without errors. Eventually it started getting errors and I had to run at 103. Then I just got annoyed with the hole thing and decided the 135mhz was not a big enough performance increase.

Right. I've read a lot of negatives about BCLK overclocking, it just throws everything out of whack. I guess I'll make my goal 3.8GHz, if possible with my setup.

 

[newtekie1]

I am interested in that feature (well, fastboot). I just want to use all the optimizations available.

Fastboot doesn't actually help boot speed all that much. On my main rig I get 3 settings for FastBoot, Disabled, Fast, and UltraFast. Only UltraFast requires a UEFI VBIOS. Setting it to fast shaves about half a second off boot time, it basically skips the checks for USB storage devices and a few other devices during POST. Ultrafast shaves about a second off boot, skipping almost all of the POST process. But since the POST process on my board only takes about 2 seconds anyway the difference isn't really worth the hassle. I say it isn't worth the hassle because I like to boot from a USB stick from time to time, and with UltraFast enabled it is impossible to get into the UEFI BIOS by hitting Del on the keyboard during boot. Instead I have to use the special boot options of Win8 to boot into the UEFI BIOS.

 

[hat]

Fastboot doesn't actually help boot speed all that much. On my main rig I get 3 settings for FastBoot, Disabled, Fast, and UltraFast. Only UltraFast requires a UEFI VBIOS. Setting it to fast shaves about half a second off boot time, it basically skips the checks for USB storage devices and a few other devices during POST. Ultrafast shaves about a second off boot, skipping almost all of the POST process. But since the POST process on my board only takes about 2 seconds anyway the difference isn't really worth the hassle. I say it isn't worth the hassle because I like to boot from a USB stick from time to time, and with UltraFast enabled it is impossible to get into the UEFI BIOS by hitting Del on the keyboard during boot. Instead I have to use the special boot options of Win8 to boot into the UEFI BIOS.

I read about that. I came to a bit of an unsure understanding that fastboot removes that capability (press del/whatever to enter BIOS). I also imagine that could cause frustration for users like us who OC. Imagine instilling settings that result in an unstable OC that will POST, but fail getting into Windows... time to clear the CMOS! That can be a hassle.

The part about getting into UEFI through Windows doesn't seem a big deal to me, though. How often do we really enter the BIOS? Even users like us, or at least me, generally don't see it unless we're tinkering with the OC.

Still, jumping platforms like this is likely to call for a reinstallation of Windows anyway, so I may as well set up UEFI everything if I have to do that.

 

[newtekie1]

Fastboot won't affect Windows being in UEFI mode, nor will a standard VBIOS.